Congressman Admits That Trump Is a Fascist but Doesn’t Think We Should Say So… Huh?!?

Last week, at a Town Hall meeting attended by 1,000 people, New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler admitted that Donald Trump is a fascist. In response to a member of Refuse Fascism, Nadler said, “Donald Trump is the first major candidate in American politics, in recent decades, that I think really deserves to be called a fascist. Trump comes along and says ‘you’ve got some real problems: A, B and C. And it’s the fault of the Mexicans, and the Chinese. And the solution is me. I am the solution. Only I can take care of it.’ That is, that is fascism: blaming it, blaming the problems on scapegoats, and the strongman [as the solution].”

Nadler then said that while it is true that Trump is a fascist, it is not a good idea to say so. “It’s true, there are fascists. Some of them are fascists. I think the president is. But you want to stop what they’re doing. And you want to use the terminology that is most effective for doing it.”

Let’s look at the logic of this. If Trump is fascist, that has implications in terms of the extremity of his program and the “logic of the logic” of where that goes. Do people need to know that? Do they need to make their strategies of struggle and their actions commensurate with the threat that Trump actually represents? Can they go through the normal channels of the system to stop this, or do they have to go outside those channels? These are all questions that come from actually naming the problem you’re facing. But Nadler—and others—don’t want to go there.

Nadler says, “You want to use the terminology that is most effective for doing it.” The question is, doing what? Actually driving out a fascist regime, as soon as possible, before even more dire consequences ensue? Or keeping the anger within the bounds of the system’s safety valve, the electoral arena?

This is the equivalent of a doctor refusing to tell a patient that they have cancer—a practice, by the way, that was standard operating procedure in American medicine for decades in regard to women. You prevent them from coming to grips with their real situation and acting on that. As applied to cancer, it’s now seen to be unconscionable—but what does it mean and what will it mean when people apply that same method today?